Also, the word 'bourgeois' cracks me up. Especially when people use it, invariably as an insult, without realising that this is pretty much the most bourgeois thing you can possibly say. It's like hipsters banging on all the time about how awful hipsters are, or something.

...+2hr03mins...

Originally Posted by nomadthethird

It's pretty evenly distributed, neurosis, among bourgeois whites.

Oh this is too good. Jungian synchronicity or just the Tao of Dissensus?

The latino guys in my old neighborhood fucked anyone who could still hook up to a respirator. That's a good thing. They thought everyone was hot, too, no matter how not hot you were. Which made them much hotter. And better at sex.

I bet it makes them a fucking pain in the arse if you aren't interested.

I dunno, I can't really see that there's anything noble or admirable about going around ready to stick your cock in the first thing you bump into that has a hole and is still warm. If a woman opens her legs for every guy who walks past, is that really hot? Can't say it would get me going in a big way. Of course I'm not saying a woman's got to be some unattainable ice queen before she's got my attention - that can be fun for a bit but rapidly brings on a case of "Oh get over yourself" - it's more that I can't really imagine someone being willing to fuck essentially anyone of the opposite (or same, whatever) sex without there being some ulterior and not necessarily healthy drive going on there, like a lack of self esteem or some retarded macho ideal of virility (and it works both ways, so don't give me any grief about double standards).

Maybe that's just the thing, though - some people, for whatever reason, are attracted to almost anyone, and it's impossible for someone who isn't to subjectively know what that's like. Different strokes, and all that. Ultimately, people who aren't picky get much more sex, and if everything you eat tastes equally delicious then you're in a better position to enjoy life than some gourmet with an incredibly refined palate...

I like the ice-queens, very much. I get to the "get over yourself" bit, and then think, yeah, but it's kinda cool. Of course, they have to be attractive ice queens for this to really work. Cruel, but true. The rules of attraction.

Working for a boss as anti-social and self-critical as Letterman, whose world is circumscribed by his show, would not be easy. (The man is obviously not joking when he goes off on his self-loathing shticks; otherwise, he would have dated some of those gorgeous actresses flirting with him on air over the decades.)

Maybe that's just the thing, though - some people, for whatever reason, are attracted to almost anyone, and it's impossible for someone who isn't to subjectively know what that's like. Different strokes, and all that. Ultimately, people who aren't picky get much more sex, and if everything you eat tastes equally delicious then you're in a better position to enjoy life than some gourmet with an incredibly refined palate...

Among some classes and cultures, there are fewer prohibitions against sexual expression and what we call "promiscuity"...Marriage and the family are institutions that primarily benefit those who are on the highest rung of the social ladder, and who make the most money, i.e. the upper middle classes. In these circles, women are held to extremely high standards of physical beauty, and valued as "reproductive" beings, while men are valued for their ability to provide income and status and viewed as sexual beings. Hence, the "trophy wife" phenomenon.

Sex for the upper middle class ends up being a function of a bunch of highly
programmatic, very rigidly defined and prescribed gender role playing, of course; but it's seen as a means of ensuring social mobility first and foremost. People of this class become more and more removed from their own bodies/embodiment and the more immediate sense of sex as a mode of physical contact-response. This removal or withdrawal from the body is all encoded in the language of 'morality', of course, so people believe that they're actually foregoing the low, base, animal instincts for a higher calling in life (the family, etc.) when they follow the beaten social path.

For many of the lower and working classes, there is far less body shame, there is far less focus on unattainably perfect ideal body types, and there is far less emphasis on mateship and marriage as a form of social capital, etc. This makes people far less hung up and more likely to have sex more often (and yes, often with more partners). From an evolutionary/biological standpoint, there's a huge advantage to both sexes to sleep with as many partners as possible. It's culture that restricts sexual behavior, and it places tighter restrictions on female sexual behavior than it does on male sexual behavior. In my experience, people who are less privileged are markedly less neurotic or hung up about sex, and much better off for it in bed. Unsurprisingly, they also seem to be quite successful reproductively (quantity does seem to count, of course)

FYI, Latinos actually report the highest satisfaction with their sex lives. Another fact to look up. Which makes instant intuitive sense if you know anything about Latino culture or if you've known any latinos.